Irish Help at Home LLC v. Rosemary Melville , 679 F. App'x 634 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 10 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    IRISH HELP AT HOME LLC and                      No.    15-15830
    BRIDGET MCDERMOTT,
    D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00943-MEJ
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    ROSEMARY MELVILLE, California
    Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Services; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted February 17, 2017
    San Francisco, California
    Before: TASHIMA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN,** District
    Judge.
    Irish Help at Home LLC (“Irish Help”) filed a petition pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) to classify Bridget McDermott as a nonimmigrant “specialty
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
    occupation” worker. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
    (“USCIS”) denied the petition, finding that Irish Help failed to establish that the
    Deputy Controller position that McDermott would fill was a specialty occupation.
    In this action filed by Irish Help seeking review under the Administrative Procedure
    Act (“APA”), the district court granted summary judgment to the government
    defendants. We have jurisdiction of Irish Help’s appeal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and
    affirm.
    1. The determination by the USCIS that the Irish Help Deputy Controller
    position was not a specialty occupation was not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
    discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Family Inc. v. USCIS, 
    469 F.3d 1313
    , 1315 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 
    5 U.S.C. § 706
    (2)(A)) (describing standard
    of judicial review of agency action under the APA). The Department of Labor’s
    Occupational Outlook Handbook entry on Financial Managers did not compel the
    conclusion that the position met the statutory requirement, 
    8 U.S.C. § 1184
    (i)(1)(B),
    of requiring a degree in a “specific specialty.”1 See In re Michael Hertz Assocs., 19
    1
    The Handbook described the educational requirements for Financial
    Managers as follows:
    A bachelor’s degree in finance, accounting, economics, or business
    administration is often the minimum education needed for financial
    managers. However, many employers now seek candidates with a
    master’s degree, preferably in business administration, finance, or
    economics.
    
    2 I. & N. Dec. 558
    , 559–60 (B.I.A. 1988) (“[T]he requirement of a degree of
    generalized title, such as business administration,” does not render an occupation a
    “profession.”).   A prior unpublished and non-precedential USCIS decision
    interpreting a previous Handbook edition does not make the decision in this case
    arbitrary or capricious. See Chan v. Reno, 
    113 F.3d 1068
    , 1073 (9th Cir. 1997)
    (“[U]npublished precedent is a dubious basis for demonstrating the type of
    inconsistency which would warrant rejection of deference.” (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted)).
    2. The USCIS “examine[d] the relevant data” submitted by Irish Help and
    “articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n
    of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 
    463 U.S. 29
    , 43 (1983). The USCIS
    satisfactorily explained why it concluded that the evidence proffered by Irish Help
    did not establish a degree requirement “common to the industry in parallel positions
    among similar organizations.” 
    8 C.F.R. § 214.2
    (h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). The agency also
    sufficiently explained why it found Irish Help’s claims regarding the complexity of
    the Deputy Controller position unsubstantiated. See 
    id.
     § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2),
    (4).2
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    Given these conclusions, we need not reach the USCIS’s alternative holding
    that McDermott was not qualified for a specialty occupation.
    3